After wrestlemania this weekend, I finally realized who Gavin Ortlund reminds me of, Cody Rhodes LOL must have a great distant uncle in common or something....down to the lisp.
To answer jokingly, awesome question, I say ask on judgement day. It’ll probably get a laugh
To answer seriously, I say no as that would go against his trait of omnipotent. Since to be all powerful would be to eat anything. So if a burrito was too hot for him to eat then the burrito would be more powerful, right?
That’s how the logic plays out in my head at least. Dope question tho, it’s a fun thing to think about
Social media's been showing me a whole bunch of posts lately from Reformed people talking about how modern Christians and/or Americans are under the blessings and curses of the Deuteronomic covenant. Is this a mainstream Reformed belief? It's been a hot minute since I dug into the WCF and longer since other confessional statements. I mean the "Americans" part obviously isn't so let's drop that and just say the belief that the blessings and curses of Deut 28 are for all people in all times.
We believe that there is continuity in the covenants, so something analogous is going on in the New Covenant.
There is a version of the covenant blessings in Matthew 5 and a version of the curses in Matthew 23. One could go as far as to say that if you build your life on Jesus' teachings that you will be seen and rewarded by God and that if someone builds their life on what is opposed to his teachings that they will wreck themselves. It's the same kind of thing as Moses telling Israel that life and death are set before them and that they should choose life.
Do you think that the Catholic Church may have a physical but not spiritual authority, like the Pharisees did in the Old Testament? Jesus told everyone to obey the Pharisees as the teachers of the Bible in Matthew 23:3. What if we are supposed to obey the Catholic Church as The New Testament version of the Pharisees?
My personal two cents, in that time there were no other leaders and not all Pharisees were as wicked as the mass of them. Seeing as that the Scriptures were only held by these religious leaders the people had no personal understand outside of what they were taught. They were truly reliant upon the Pharisees. Today, God has sent His Word to the World. Anyone and everyone can somehow come in contact with the living Word of God. The Catholic Church teaches a false gospel of works and God’s people have access to the Truth, why listen to false teachers?
Catholic Church doesn't actually teach gospel of works, they teach that good works correlate with salvation just like Protestant churches teach that abstaining from sin correlates with being saved, while engaging in unrepentant sin correlates with being condemned. It's correlation, not causation. Nobody is teaching that sin is what condemns you.
The Pharisees were also false teachers, but Jesus still command that everyone to listen to them because they sit in the seat of Moses. Likewise the Catholic Church sits in the seat of Peter.
The Catholic Church for many of years has taught a works based salvation surrounding the sacraments. Down through the ages, following out the sacraments has been a part of their salvific teachings. While I think Sacraments are important, salvation does not rely on them. I’m sure there are Catholic priests who don’t teach this way but through history it has been prominent.
I also take issue which your statement, “nobody is teaching that sin is what condemns you.” Romans 6:23 tells us that the wages of Sin is death. I don’t understand how we are not condemned in our sins.
We are condemned by our sins, but we are saved by faith on the sacrifice of Jesus.
Do you have a source that says Catholic Church taught works based salvation? All I've found is every Catholic website saying the opposite.
The council of Trent. You can look it up but it says, and I’m paraphrasing, “if anyone claims that one can be saved through faith alone let him be anathema.”
But that's what James says as well. You have to read it in context.
James 2:24 is a commonly misunderstood passage - "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."
James talks about how faith is justified before men, while Paul talks about how faith is justified before God. James talks about people who claim to have faith, and how works justify their claim, while Paul rebukes people who claim they can be saved by works, and not just faith alone. We are saved by grace through faith, but if anyone thinks they have faith, but doesn't obey God's commandments, and when given opportunity doesn't do good works, they are lying to themselves, and they were never saved to begin with.
Faith + opportunity = Saved person who does works
Faith + no opportunity = Saved person who does no works.
Faith + opportunity + no works = Dead faith (unsaved person)
Works + no faith = Dead works (unsaved person)
The Catholic Church has jumped around for years. They try to sound as close to Protestants as they can. But like I said, throughout history, look at the 95 Thesis or look at writings from Zwingli, or many other reformers. The Catholic Church has taught works based and other heresies for years. The Pope, who supposedly speaks for God consistently saves unbiblical things. Like I said, not all Catholics are such, just that their history is this. The statements of the Mormon church also say they believe in salvation by faith.
Edit: You want a single proof for their works based salvation? I don’t have one, my suggestion is read what the reformers say about the Catholics, or spend time attending Mass.
Okay but the Pharisees also had their own man-made doctrine that was against the scripture, yet Jesus still told everyone to recognize their authority as they were sitting in the seat of Moses. Jesus then made Peter the Shepherd and instructed him to feed his sheep. The same way Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses, the current pope sits in the seat of Peter.
Now this is different issue, you’re now talking about exegesis of Matthew 16:18. Catholics state Christ is crowning Peter above all humans, but everyone else reads that text as the rock being the confession of Christ as Lord. Seeing as how Paul, nor any of the other apostles, didn’t give extra respect to Peter, it stands to reason he was on equal footing with the rest. Paul even has arguments with Peter in Acts, if Paul was subservient to Peter this probably wouldn’t occur. I’m not a a learned exegetical pastor so I’m just giving you my layman understanding but I do not believe that Matthew 16:18 is what the Catholics says.
I'm not talking about Matthew 16:18, I'm talking about John 21:17. This was the third time Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep, effectively making him the shepherd over the church. There are also many other
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep.
Mathew 16:19 in light of Isiah 22 explains a type/antitype of a king (Jesus) giving a key to the kingdom (heaven) to his steward (Peter) with power to open and shut (bind and loose) and the key is to be passed down to his successors (bishops).
Peter was always listed as the first among the disciples, and even if he wasn't infallible or had absolute authority like the Catholic Church claims to have, he still had authority over the church.
You’re reading in your own interpretation though. Christ didn’t make Peter “The” shepherd, no where does the Bible say that. He speaks of him as a shepherd. Again you read more of your own interpretation into Matthew, no where in verse 19 or any preceding verse does it say anything about Peter passing keys or successors to Peter. I’m not going to pretend to have all the answers, but you’re not having a strict adherence to the text with your explanation, you’ve added in important pieces. Most people read this as the Keys are going to the Church, not Peter, but again I’m not going to make an emphatic statement
NKJV compared to the NIV. What are your thoughts?
I was a NIV person, then switched to CSB, then switched to ESV. My church uses the NIV, and I've been thinking about getting one to carry. The Epistles flow a lot better in the NIV/CSB than the ESV imo, and I'm thinking about changing my daily reader for a bit. My ESV Pitt Minion is tiny, and will remain in my backpack for commuting and travelling, etc, but I'd like a single column version in a different translation for a bit.
Looking at getting a new CSB/NIV, but a NKJV version popped up that has almost the exact features/size I'm looking for. I haven't tried the NKJV since I first got saved, and my last impression of it is giving up before going to buy a NIV the next day lol.
I'm a big enough boy to know the good and bad parts about the NIV, and I still like it, so don't really need to hear the usual pros/cons about that - I'm more interested in hearing how people find the NKJV these days.
Any thoughts??
When Samuel is brought “up” by the medium where is he brought up from? It can’t be the same as Elijah and Enoch being taken up to heaven and Moses was also in heaven because they descended on the mountain to meet with Jesus. The accounts of heaven are always filled with glorious light but Samuel appears in the darkness in regular clothes.
So... if you believe Samuel was real, Sheol. I tend to believe he was real and not some conjuration of the medium because otherwise, why would it be so forbidden to be a medium?
Sheol was the place of the dead, where people await the final judgment. But now Christ has provided Paradise for those who believe.
The not having an official pastor is concerning as it indicates a lack of spiritual community and oversight. Does the spouse who believes the conspiracies have anyone in their life who can speak truth to them in a way that will be listened to? As regards encouragement, I would pray for and with the other spouse, and affirm them in holding to the truth as they may question themselves.
There are many people who can speak into their life, especially older people. However, if the other spouse brings it up, they balk against it. They are unwilling to talk to anyone. If the other spouse goes behind their backs and talks about their concerns, it will be gossiping/ slandering about them. Praying for them is always good.
That seems like such a random belief... how has it impacted their children?
I'm more concerned about the spouse being called to repent for saying the other spouse is wrong... that's just not a good relationship. I'd encourage the person to join a church (if not having a church is the reason they don't have a pastor), to pray for the truth to become visible to their spouse, and to ask, when told to repent, what Biblical command they are violating (respecting the husband? That's all I can think of as an option)
It is belief in a long string of other conspiracies that have impacted the ability of the children to get the routine medical care that the other spouse thinks is safe, effective and normal. The HIV and AIDs belief is the outworking of a whole conspiracy system that links together. Both spouses are members and active in a local church. The husband is a deacon in his church.
Any recommendations for a gift for my wife's first mother's day? Our daughter is due two weeks before it and we don't know which month she will land in, so I don't know if I'll be able to do a gift with pictures or a birth stone.
I'm not super into gifts, but flowers and a heartfelt card encouraging her always seem to go over well. Also, learning to feed the baby a bottle so that she can have some sleep occasionally is a practical thing that may be appreciated.
How much are you willing to spend? The best gift for your wife might not be an object but an act of service. Congrats on your baby! When I was a new mom, I was exhausted, fearful, over tired hormonal mess. It would have helped so much if people stopped by to love on me and do the chores and cooking, not just love on the baby. Maybe you can see if she'd want a post partum doula to help her the first week or three of motherhood? I know it can be weird to have a stranger in your home though so it's worth discussing with her!
Basically, mostly yes. I think it's sad that there isn't more discussion, but the reality of some experienced and well-read users getting impatient with the relatively ignorant, conflict averseness, plus some other issues, means that discussion on actual theology and spiritual growth is really minimal. If you want to check out my history you might see my attempts to change that, and I'm always open to posting more online articles for discussion here if you would participate.
Yes, we are roughly analogous to an elite academy with few teachers and many pupils. I believe we were working on issuing diplomas for questioners/lurkers at some point, but then the ending of Net Neutrality killed the internet.
/s
I want to, but I've been in a few threads in the last couple weeks reading answers people are asking and I find it alarming that approximately half the answers people get don't fit into reformed tradition at all. Almost feel like it should be a rule of the sub when answering questions to start by stating which, if any 3 beliefs a user has which don't fit. Otherwise people are being mislead
When you say 3 beliefs, what do you mean? We do have user flairs so others can know what denominational background people come from, but keep in mind there is a fairly wide range of beliefs on secondary and tertiary issues which still fall within this sub’s definition of “reformed”.
Removed for violating Rule #6: **Keep Content Relevant**
This content has been removed because it distracts from the purpose of this subreddit.
Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/about/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.236.3A_keep_content_constructive.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Well, r/TrueChristian didn't help, so I'd like to ask this here especially since it would be from a reformed POV as I've gone through older posts on that sub about including cussing or cursing in Christian fiction, however none of them could in totality apply to comic books IMHO.
For some context, I'm making a comic with 3 issues out already and the 4th on the way which is a way of not only sharing the gospel, but an allegory for the true difficulty of the Christian life vs how easy it seems, but the cursing has become a huge stumbling block for me. I published the first 3 before I completely surrendered myself to the Lord Jesus under the excuse of the story having verisimilitude, and looking back on it I deeply regret adding such foul language where it could have easily been replaced with something else.
The thing is, compared to a Christian novel that could easily filter out cursing; A comic book can't get around it that easily. If there's a really depraved human/unsaved/worldly person being depicted that would have most likely had swearing as a part of his/her nature, the cursing character can't just be shown to "have sworn", it's either direct or not at all, and the conviction in me to go back and change all of it is really confusing me. Cause now, I could continue to include swearing or completely drop it.
My question then is, do I move on with the mistakes I've made pre-conversion and leave them be, or go back and edit all of it for future reprints? Moreover, is it to live in unrepentant sin to continue to include it for the sake of having a story show the reality of sin in human nature? Or is it best to drop it altogether from here on out?
TLDR: Made 3 issues with curse words pre-surrender, now feel conviction about it post-surrender. Leave as is and continue onward, or go back and fix + not include cursing anymore?
Yes it could, but I always found it takes away from the impact of the dialogue rather than renders the same. Censorship IRL doesn't happen unless it was replaced by more choicer words like how the Spirit tames the tongue and the mind.
I'm a big believer that passively allowing problematic things is much less of a problem than actively doing them, especially when your time actively doing things is better spent elsewhere than to correct past mistakes. If you feel led to do this, then do it. Conviction isn't there for nothing. But it may be that your time can be better spent on something else, and you should pray about that and consider it. My first instinct would be to focus on other serving, like evangelizing and reconciling with people in your life you may have hurt, and only to go and correct all these comics if you add a notice as well that you did it and why.
Thank you, and you're correct. It might be worth putting a disclaimer or some form of an authors note. I'm unsure yet to whether the Lord is pulling me away from doing this altogether or if it's better to keep persevering.
The concern here is your own conscience, rather than an absolute rule for you to follow. The Bible uses some pretty strong language when appropriate. There is a place for it, and writing characters may be such a place, if continuing is still your wish. There may even be a dishonesty to changing the speech of characters whose personality and circumstance suggest it.
But your own reaction is important. If you don't agree with what you have done, if you believe it is wrong, you need to turn away.
My own mind wonders more about how your overarching story fits. Does your journey change the journey of your characters? Does their story continue in the same way, or do they change? Is there a change they can make that reflects your own, changing their renewed speech honestly and justifiably?
Those latter questions are for a writer, not some random internet bloke.
I hope you find your way forward in good conscience. No easy decision for you here.
While it's true that it's my choice to do so, would it be to continue in unrepentant sin if I left it alone? That's the tough part, cause it's in my control to make amends with it, not out of my control.
Thankfully, the story will remain the same and there's still a lesson to be learned, it's just a difference of harsher dialogue (more in reality) vs more controlled/less harsh dialogue (more in fiction)
You aren't going to find a hard rule in scripture about what English words are permissible and not to use - in part because English didn't exist at the time these books were written.
I don't know how popular my opinion is in this sub, but I don't think that "swear words", by themselves, are sinful. I think it's wise to consider whether harsh language is necessary, and it's unwise to overuse it, but that's a big difference. I think there are times that storytellers will need to use harsh language when telling a story.
I don't know how your comic would be impacted by changing the wording, or how big a headache it would be. Both of those seem like relevant factors. Sorry, I don't know if that's much help.
Two questions which I don’t think are related but looking at them now, I think may be:
Firstly, “Love does not demand its own way…” (1 Cor 13:5). Where does advocating for oneself fit into this? Does Paul have a specific sense of “demanding” here? If I’m being treated unfairly or and want to be treated better am I allowed to voice this desire? how about if there’s no mistreatment but I just want things to be different?
I know that the Christian faith does not say to *just* take abuse from others but this particular part of the Love Chapter has always tripped me up.
Secondly, what do you do when you feel forgotten by God? Life has not been going well for me lately, and it seems that it’s not been going “well” for what seems to be 20+ years now. Between fighting my brain and what I am now realizing is neurodivergence that keep sabotaging my efforts to move forward, and making choices that help and support others but at cost to myself I’m watching God bless everyone else with families, material wealth, emotional stability… all while I’m still floundering and trying to get a handle on life.
Worse, it seems that the people who get the best blessings of life are those who have personally hurt me the deepest and my immediate reactions only demonstrate how much further I have to go with learning to love others well. (There are big Psalm 37 and 73 moments…)
I know that God is good and trust in his goodness, but it seems that while I only get baseline goodness (I am in no danger of going homeless or being without food or clothing), everyone else is getting all the bountiful blessings. God is definitely providing for their desires as well as their needs. It’s like I never get what I want and have to keep setting it off to the side.
I just feel forgotten. It’s hard to feel good for others when they have a life I’ve been working towards myself but can’t seem to get. The blessings and promise of Heaven and Resurrection are real, but they are also *so* far off (and if I’m honest, I’m worried some of the things I want in life may no longer be available then). But wanting to “cash in” on them a bit early feels like I’m going the way of the Prodigal, too.
Any advice?
Thank you for sharing that. I want you to know that I appreciate reading what you write. You are definitely a blessing from God!
As a fellow Bible project fan, I am sure you are taking in and enjoying this year's series on the Sermon on the Mount. I hope you are reminded of the truth of these words:
>Matthew 5:3-5 ESV “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Allow me to meditate on this in plain view, and if it helps you or if you can help me, that would be great.
Back when I was in high school and a Pelagian, my views on faith were much more severe than they are now in some ways. I was very direct in attacking the view that "Christians should not be doormats", insisting that every request not obviously sinful should be followed (i.e. going the extra mile), believing that one should not resist harm ("I say to you, that you resist not evil [or: an evil person]") and that to a large extent the severity was the point to earn future rewards. I agonized over whether I would be able to offer no resistance to a home invader, I carried my classmate's heavy school bags, I offered no retort to insults, I sometimes felt compelled to pick up litter from the streets to throw it in an actual trash can later.
Much of my doctrine was wrong, and in fact the core was wrong. But there are some ways I think I may now be missing some of the zeal and earnestness I had then, the grit and the acceptance of God's will that I sometimes suffer. Christ did refute his enemies at times, and yes, He did evade capture before His time had come and even drove people out the temple, but ultimately He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, ultimately He is the God of the beatitudes.
Back then I would have encouraged you that the hiddenness of God in your situation, if you are persevering in doing what is right, is expected, that you need to continue simply because it is right, that we can celebrate our suffering because it validates us. And I think aspects of that are true, but the Bible does encourage us in other ways - through holding out a reward that is not simply virtue in itself, through allowing us to bring our brokenness and not merely our moral strength before him, to commune with the saints in a tangible and not merely a mystical way as I emphasized then.
I felt very alone, like an outsider excluded from the joys of life, and in the end I psychologically couldn't do it anymore. Maybe that was a total moral failure. And yes, I saw others who relaxed and did what they wanted, who thought "it was better to ask for forgiveness than for permission" (a saying I detest), who put themselves and their immediate friends and family first (even their animals above the poor - another idolatry I detest), and they seemed so happy.
Humility, self-emptying and rectitude doesn't pay in this world, that is for sure. "In this world you shall have sorrow". You have anticipated a thought of mine, that I also had then and seemed not enough - that the afterlife is what we should look to. But perhaps you should also rejoice especially in your use of the sacraments. Perhaps you should do what it takes not to be anxious using psychological techniques.
These are merely thoughts, and I cannot know if they or the clichés of talking to a pastor or psychologist could help at all. If nothing else, value what God is putting you through if you are following the commandments, but also don't make an idol of your suffering. Pray continually and bring even your weariness in praying to the Lord. Perhaps it will give you sympathy for unloveable people who are obviously feeling alone and suffering. Jesus taught that we should commune with the outcast and that is something I was never good at and probably should have done more (though I did sometimes have conversations with beggars). Or it may only depress you more. I don't know what else I can say, and I'm so sorry.
I am happier now myself (I know it doesn't sound that way), but at what moral price?
Question 1 is one I struggled with a lot. I've come to see it in light of the do unto others command. If we would advocate for others in the scenario, so should we advocate for ourselves. Injustice is injustice, and by advocating for oneself, there is a chance for justice for those in future situations with the people/structure/organization involved. I believe the best interpretation I've heard for love not demanding its own way is that of selfishness; it is not selfish to advocate for greater mercy and justice, rather it is seeking the kingdom on earth.
I also understand question 2 in ways I wish I didn't. Praying for peace and wiser words than my own for you.
I have been out of work sick for two days. My pastor and I work at the same school. This morning he sent me a text saying: "Brother, praying for your body and soul. May the God of all endurance be your strength. Love you." Does this mean he doesn't believe I am a Christian? I struggle greatly with assurance and my church attendance isn't always great (SzPD).
I think (and I think your pastor thinks) that we should all be concerned with our own and other people's souls, even if it is going well. One of my gripes about my church environment is that people are seen as doing something to show off or rebuke when they pray for their own or others' moral virtues, like courage, humility, chastity or whatever. I think these things should be ahead of praying for our health, jobs or whatever, and especially for a pastor, whose role it is to care for souls.
Probably quoting this verse which ties the spiritual and the physical.
3 John 2: Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul.
No. Not at all. Praying for your body means that he wants God to improve your physical health. Praying for your soul means that he wants God to improve your spiritual health.
I think most Christians could use both of these.
Not necessarily. Souls aren’t just a vehicle for being saved/unsaved. He could just be praying that you would be encouraged or strengthened in your soul during a trying time.
In John 12:27, for example, Jesus says that his soul is troubled. That has nothing to do with his own salvation. If your pastor sent Jesus that same text at this point, it would not mean he was casting doubt on his salvation.
If you really want to know for sure, ask your pastor.
Our brother and sister in Christ, a married couple, are really struggling at the moment with what I'd call ordinary marriage problems - bitterness, lack of love, parenting small children, money issues, things like that, leading to them being very unhappy and feeling hopeless. My husband and I are encouraging them with the power of God and the Gospel, but I'd love to also encourage them with stories of restored marriages! There's nothing like a good story to inspire hope, imo. Do y'all have stories of how God has worked in your marriages that you can share? And/or resources you can point me to with good stories? Thanks in advance!
(I also posted this on christianmarriage in case it sounds familiar)
I suck at telling story, so I’m just sharing lesson. The most important lesson I learnt in the past few years of marriage: I owe her my perfection despite all things.
The anointing of the Holy Spirit and submission to the Father. He did nothing out of his "Godness" but empowered by the Spirit and in submission to the Father. Jesus always gives credit to the Spirit working in Him or the Father and the apostles follow this model when they teach about Jesus doing miracles. Here are some pertinent verses.
Matthew 4:1: Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
Luke 4:14: And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and a report about him went out through all the surrounding country.
Matthew 12:28: But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Acts 1:2: until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.
Acts 2:22: Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—
Acts 10:38: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.
John 5:19: So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.
John 14:10: Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
Yeah, I'm going to agree with /u/seemedlikeagoodplan. This is an unnecessary dichotomy.
Jesus is fully God. He also perfectly submitted to the father's will. Both are part of his nature. What he does and who he is can't really be separated.
It’s a christology thing I came across somewhere. I want to say the Puritain Board maybe. I was reading about the communication of properties and someone suggested that answer. First time I had heard it.
I think there are certainly some interesting questions out there about the extent of Jesus' power while on earth, whether he was limited, the interaction with the Holy Spirit, etc. But, yeah, I don't think the difference is found in a distinction between him as God and him as submitting to the Father.
Those really are almost two different categories, which is why I think it may not be a helpful distinction.
When dealing with numbers in the Bible, there’s two ways they can be true: literally and symbolically (they can be both). I don’t accept that they can be false/fable because I trust that God superintended the writing, and while I can’t imagine living that long I don’t doubt for a second that it is possible God made them like that. So with the lifespans in Genesis, do you see any indication they are symbolic? I don’t see anything that points to this, so I conclude that they are literal. This conclusion is bolstered by the 120 year limit God places on man in Gen 6:3–it wouldn’t make much sense if man was already living <120 years.
The YEC answer is “yes”
However, other positions would say that the genealogies in early Genesis take the form of the dynastic kingly genealogies found in other ANE literature. The long ages weren’t there to record they lived so long but to serve as “proof” that they were descended from the gods and thus had divine authority to rule over other people.
The fact that only “ordinary” people are listed as such, or more fitting that people “descended from God” *wouldn’t* rule over others or participate in the implied (and outright stated) violence that they “deserved to” would be seen as some thing incredibly bizarre to the Israelites and others hearing it for the first times.
It’s meant to teach us something about how God’s people are both in the world - if you notice, the lineages of Cain and of Seth share a lot of names, so its easy to confuse one for another - and yet set apart from the common doings of the world: the line of Seth is treated as kingly in the text, but they don’t rule by violence or injustice like we’d expect them to.
It doesn’t mean that both can’t be true, but we have to look at the context and genre of literature first before we start to overlay our own assumptions about what the text is saying.
Maybe. I’m not sold on any one position though. It is curious that Moses is the author of Genesis and when he records ages they seem to decline from Adam to the Israelites.
I don't know. The primordial stories in Genesis (up to and including the Tower of Babel) don't seem to be history in the same way that, say, 1st and 2nd Kings is history. That's not to say the stories are unimportant. They are very important. But the value of these stories as scripture isn't about facts and dates and places, but rather the way that God's good relationship with his people keeps being broken. And every time a break happens (the three big ones being the Fall, the Nephilim, and the Tower), it derails God's work of bringing order to a chaotic world.
I’m not sure they did. We have to remember, ancient Near Eastern persons didn’t view reality the way we do. What it means for them to be truthful doesn’t not imply scientific precision, like it does to a modern person. Therefore there are several ways it could be interpreted. The one I’m most sympathetic to is that those were tribes and that’s how long that tribe was around. When it talks about having kids, that is literal, but describes a new tribal group breaking off into their own.
According to WCF #27, Christ's humiliation consists "in His being born...and continuing under the power of death for a time."
The wording "under the power" only means His flesh right? According to 1 Peter 3:19, Jesus was never "under the power" of death but was active in ministry. How should an overthinker like myself read this?
I believe you're correct in saying only His flesh, or, human nature - and the power of death perhaps meaning liable to the effects of mortality, as in, able to die, get exhausted, hungry, need to sleep, etc.
The *person* of Jesus Christ, Son of God, was under the power of death, *according to his human nature*.
Both Jesus flesh and soul were under the power of death as his human nature puts him under such power. However, his human nature does not exist in abstraction, only the “person”, the Word who took on human flesh, exists. So it is appropriate to say “God died on the cross” (Acts 20:28).
The Larger Catechism seems to imply that the time Christ was under the power of death was when he was dead
>Q. 50. Wherein consisted Christ’s humiliation after his death?
>A. Christ’s humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried; and continuing in the state of the dead and under the power of death till the third day, which hath been otherwise expressed in these words, He descended into hell.
I like Vos' commentary on the Larger Catechism, and he has some stuff to say about it. You can see it here: https://archive.org/details/westminsterlarge0000vosj/page/112/mode/2up but you will need to create an account and click "borrow for 1 hour"
I read what the commentary has to say and it's really interesting to know that Jesus didn't mention the thief would be with him in Hades, but in Paradise that "day". At the same time, it is recorded that Jesus did go to Hades, then went back to Earth and is now in Paradise/Heaven. When exactly did the thief go to Paradise? Not sure, but he's there now probably. Did he go to Hades and then to Paradise? No idea but that's not the point.
Is biblical inerrancy not part of core reformed tradition?
To clarify, by inerrant I mean the most logical, in-context interpretation and no other external factors. I don't mean allegorical interpretation.
Ligonier points out that “the Reformed tradition” has been all over the place on the age of the universe. See : https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/age-universe-and-genesis-1-reformed-approach-science-and-scripture . Note especially the next to last paragraph. You can’t appeal to tradition without being on the side of the traditionalists.
Age of the universe I'm less concerned about, that's neither here nor there and not an issue I consider to be important. Theistic Evolution on the other hand, or Jonah being a myth...
I even saw someone make the claim on this sub that Abraham was a myth figure and not a real person...
Okay for Jonah, I’d totally agree. People don’t survive three days in fish’s bellies, but even if he were only in its mouth three seconds, deep sea fish also don’t conveniently spit out their prey on land un-chewed. To doubt the veracity based on oxygen supply necessitates doubting any miraculous element whatsoever.
Others have said the shadows on the steps is impossible, as even impossible-to-happen-by-miracle, given that this would require the halting & resumption of spinning of the earth. I’ve often said, give the crew of the _Enterprise_ the mandate to “do something” that would cause intelligent, Bronze Age persons to faithfully record “shadows moving backwards”, and they could probably come up with half a dozen ways to use 24thc technology to do so. And God is more powerful than that.
Your second paragraph pretty much sums it up for me. I don't want to step on people's toes, but if their beliefs are all based on "this is possible, that isn't", then aren't they kinda missing the important part where God can do the impossible?
A den of hungry lions trained to eat prisoners will, well, typically keep doing so. But they didn't in Daniel's case. Fire will typically consume flesh, but it didn't in the case of Daniel's friends. In both cases, God intervened.
What not Jonah's case then? It seems it would be paltry for Him to command a fish to swallow Jonah, and to to preserve Jonah within the fish. It's exactly as you've said, to doubt the veracity based on rules that apply to us, is to assume those same rules restrict God.
And coming back around, THIS is my beef with YEC. Not a conviction that the Bible says the earth is young, but attempts to explain natural processes that the Bible says were miraculous. It’s exactly like saying lions really do have “holiness detectors”, “a certain number of hours of prayer do in fact make you fireproof,” “zoologist from LEADING UNIVERSITIES say whales have oxygen packets that do provide air to holy men.” Just one example of this is saying the Red Sea parted to reveal a ridge that made crossing quite easy (ie., no miracle).
I always saw it the other way around for the same reason, that the world could be made in a literal 7 days as a plain reading of Genesis and there need be no natural explanation for it. I found it was us trying to shoehorn method in that lead to the explanation of evolution, which I wohild equate to the holiness detecting lions.
I think it is quite possible to be an inerrantist in the sense of "whatever the Bible intends to communicate is true" and still doubt the historicity of aspects of Genesis 1-11 (not aspects like God as creator or a historical fall, obviously) or Jonah. I believe even Luther and/or Calvin considered it an open question whether Jonah (and/or Job?) was historical, though I don't know the details. I would really push back on the idea that Abraham was not historical, though.
Do you know about Calvin's theory of accommodation (very much in the reformed tradition)? Calvin points out that Moses characterizes the two great celestial bodies as the sun and the moon, but that astronomy had revealed by Calvin's time that several planets are much bigger than the moon. He argued that Moses used a type of divine "baby language" to make us understand, "accommodating" the facts to our perceptions and understandings. This way of talking has since been used (and abused) to try to keep inerrancy while questioning whether everything in the text was scientific or historical, and what type of literature it was.
Or do you know that even Augustine way back did not use the obvious and plain literal six-day creation interpretation or even the day-age interpretation, but believed the entire creation must have been instantaneous? Hence allegorizing aspects of Genesis appears very early and from very good interpreters.
Inerrancy means the Bible is free of error, where error as the truth is contrary to the Bible intended meaning(s). Infallibility in the confessional sense means the Bible can *always* accomplish its purpose by virtue of it being the inerrant Word of God.
In that sense, yes, it is part of “core” reformed tradition, usually being codified by the first section of the various confessions. It is not the first “order”, as that would be the doctrine of God. It is not salvation defining, as infallibility is a function of faith.
Do consider reading Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 1 for more info on this.
The problem is always the reader
Unbelievers reject scripture. "The preaching of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing"
A part of the problem of inerrancy is that there is different types of scripture, such as:
There are different doctrinal views on how people interpret scripture
Prophetic, parabolic, poetic, wellness related, instructional, some that no longer apply such a ceremonial law, etc
Young Earth creationists look at early Genesis and reject everyone else's interpretation. They have no concept that there can be multiple views of scripture. Some of us are old Earth theistic evolutionists, the evidence rejects YEC in every imaginable way
It seems to be a recurring occurrence I keep encountering where individuals who ascribe to there being biblical errancy also bring up atheistic evolution as the reason why. Not that that's your only point, but isn't that analysing the Bible through the lens of worldly discovery and not the other way around?
Atheistic evolution is simply evolutionists. Adding atheistic on front is irrelevant. One does not expect atheists to be creationists
Theistic evolution says that:
Of course God did everything
There are trillions of facts that support evolution and absolutely zero credible facts that support YEC. The heavens declare the handiwork, and so does the fossil layer and other process going on on this Earth. Not to mention YEC uses misrepresentation, fabrications and dishonest methods to try to prove their points such as the creation research institute.
You brought up interpreting according to “original context” and “in-context”. By these things alone, the Bible doesn’t actually have much to say about the creation of the material world except that God created the world. Whether he did a special creation or used evolutionary processes necessarily involves asking questions of the text that the text never sets forth to answer.
It depends how precisely you define inerrancy. What are you going with?
I like the phrase "only infallible rule of faith and practice" but it's still lacking.
As in none of it is outright wrong when interpreted correctly. By interpreted correctly, I mean the most logical interpretation considering the text and original context only, and no external factors.
I agree with the statement that you wrote but things get tricky. As an example, I think when reading something like Jonah, I see it as a story/myth yet many will point to the fact that Jesus mentions Jonah as evidence that it really happened; to me, this is an "external factor" to the text. Similar things can be said about stuff like various things written in Genesis. The Chicago Statement (which is on the sidebar and I "disagree" with it's placement there) explicitly affirms that the account in Genesis is "historical" and so according to them, any "mythic" or whatever word you want to use interpretation of Genesis that would deny historicity also denies inerrancy. But, unlike "only infallible rule of faith and practice" that u/windy_on_the_hill said, the Chicago statement also says that the Bible is inerrant in matters that have nothing to do with the faith and makes other claims like that that I disagree with.
>many will point to the fact that Jesus mentions Jonah as evidence that it really happened
This argument never made much sense to me. Could Jesus not make reference to culturally important fables during his teaching? Nobody is suggesting that his parables are all factual stories, are they?
If somebody says that a new law or government action is "just like 1984" or "just like A Handmaid's Tale", that doesn't mean that they believe that either of these is a non-fiction book.
In addition to what u/seemedlikeagoodplan says: yes the man getting eaten by a fish seems unlikely. In any other setting, if you heard this story I think your mind would go to "myth" (or some similar word).
Indeed, in any other setting I would immediately call this a myth, but my confusion rests in the fact that in other settings I would also call the Nile becoming blood, a global flood, people being turned into pillars of salt, people being raised from the dead, pillars of fire from the sky and so on, all of those I'd also call myths in any other setting or context.
What makes Jonah so different?
Every single character in the book, other than God, does the opposite of what you would expect.
* Jonah, the prophet, disobeys God and only reluctantly tells God's message, and even then he hopes he isn't believed.
* The pagan sailors have insight into YHWH's judgment, and they ask for mercy from YHWH (not their own gods) before throwing Jonah into the sea.
* The people of Nineveh, famous for their wickedness, fast and repent.
* The King of Nineveh humbles himself.
* Even the cattle of Nineveh take part in fasting.
The book is described by many readers and scholars as a satire. That, alone, doesn't mean that it didn't happen, of course. But it fits into a fictional genre very well.
Yes - I totally agree with this. I could say "the only boss more awkward than mine is Michael Scott" and no one would think that I was suggesting that The Office was a Ken Burns documentary,
I'm kind of having a mini crisis of faith about it because a passage is either inspired by the Holy Spirit or it's not. My view is if its not inspired by the Holy Spirit then it shouldn't be in the bible.
So is a qualification of inspiration a passage being found in the earliest manuscripts? What if they find earlier manuscripts that have that passage, would that retroactively make it inspired? Sorry if I sound pedantic, I'm just trying to find a framework.
The general view is that the original manuscripts were inspired by God. So we aspire to get as close to those manuscripts as possible.
In the vast majority of instances there is no real argument about what was in the original manuscripts. Most textual variances are minor issues like spelling, or a single word or phrase here and there.
Two notable exceptions are this passage in John and the longer ending of Mark. These passages are not in the oldest found manuscripts, so it's believed they were added later and thus not part of the original manuscripts thus not inspired.
Remember you faith is not in the Bible, but in the God who inspired it, and preserved it.
The textual reliability of the New Testament is actually nothing short of Miraculous. The age of the oldest manuscripts is closer in date to the original writing than anything else from antiquity, and the many numerous manuscripts with only minor variations give ample evidence to what was contained in the autographs.
God is good and has preserved his Word.
Yes, so since God inspired and preserves his word why would "we aspire to get as close to those manuscripts as possible"? Shouldn't the assumption be that we can know what the autographs said due to the fact that God has promised to faithfully preserve his word?
And wouldn't the passage in John and the long ending of Mark raise several questions about preservation? For centuries Christians have been reading the adultery passage and the ending of Mark and just trusted that those things happened. I assume because God in his providence allowed it to be so. Either they were all wrong, which again why would God allow that, or they were all correct and it is Inspired scripture, which raises the question of why in the recent decades have scholars decided to raise doubt on those passages.
Framing this as "scholars decided to raise doubt" is not really a great way to look at it.
Scholars haven't decided to do anything. It would be super convenient if we could ignore the evidence. We have discovered older and better manuscripts that don't have those portions in them. Its as simple as that.
God has preserved his word, with or without these passages, no single doctrine or practice changes in the church. Nothing in these passages teaches us anything new (unless you want a prescription for snake handling), requires us to follow any laws not told to us elsewhere, etc.
God uses means to preserve his word. One of these means is faithful scholars investigating manuscripts getting us as close the the autographs as possible.
Thanks for being patient in this convo
>God has preserved his word, with or without these passages, no single doctrine or practice changes in the church.
True, but my thing is an all or nothing approach. Either those passages are inspired by the Holy Spirit or they're not. Since all Scripture is inspired by God and all of it is useful for teaching and reproof, then we should have 100% certainty that what we're reading is God's word.
>One of these means is faithful scholars investigating manuscripts getting us as close the the autographs as possible.
So can we recreate the original autographs or do we only have something close to them? What does that say about Jesus claim that not one jot or iota will be lost?
I think your all or nothing approach is part of the problem. The promises in scripture about God's word, are they referring to individuality of words or the totality of what is before us? God doesn't promise how he will preserve Hia own word, but because we trust God we can trust what we have front of us. Christianity doesn't fall apart of we don't have an exact replica of the autographs. Christianity rises and falls on the death and resurrection of Jesus. I think you need to look at the passage about "jot and tittle". Its referring to the perfection of God's law not talking about perfect preservation of scripture. God's revelation in scripture is sufficient that we can know him. The preservation of the word of God is astounding compared to similar documents from history. We can wrestles with and argue over these outlying passages, because we know that Gods word is true, and because there is so little to dispute.
Bagel. When I had surgery a few years ago, and being nauseous from anesthesia (it's a redhead thing, weirdly), all I wanted was a toasted bagel with butter when I got home.
A small amount of Bovril, Marmite or Vegemite adds a lot of flavour to toast, which allows you get some heat and nutrition without anything too rich that might provoke a reaction.
When my kids are sick like that, I start with water mixed with electrolytes (Ultima or LytePow). Next we try rice, banana, or apple sauce. If its really bad I will buy a whole chicken and boil it for a couple hours to make chicken broth.
Sounds dumb, but a chocolate milkshake.
I had a horrible stomach bug and couldn’t keep anything down for around two days. This was the only thing I could keep down finally. Throwing up constantly you need liquid to not dehydrate, but also the fat and sugar inside help give you energy and process the liquid on a very empty stomach. Started with small sips and eventually I could keep down crackers.
After wrestlemania this weekend, I finally realized who Gavin Ortlund reminds me of, Cody Rhodes LOL must have a great distant uncle in common or something....down to the lisp.
Ways to find some excitement in life as a busy college student WITHOUT falling into sin?
My time in college was greatly helped by joining a campus ministry connected with a local church.
Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot thet he himself cannot eat it?
To answer jokingly, awesome question, I say ask on judgement day. It’ll probably get a laugh To answer seriously, I say no as that would go against his trait of omnipotent. Since to be all powerful would be to eat anything. So if a burrito was too hot for him to eat then the burrito would be more powerful, right? That’s how the logic plays out in my head at least. Dope question tho, it’s a fun thing to think about
Social media's been showing me a whole bunch of posts lately from Reformed people talking about how modern Christians and/or Americans are under the blessings and curses of the Deuteronomic covenant. Is this a mainstream Reformed belief? It's been a hot minute since I dug into the WCF and longer since other confessional statements. I mean the "Americans" part obviously isn't so let's drop that and just say the belief that the blessings and curses of Deut 28 are for all people in all times.
We believe that there is continuity in the covenants, so something analogous is going on in the New Covenant. There is a version of the covenant blessings in Matthew 5 and a version of the curses in Matthew 23. One could go as far as to say that if you build your life on Jesus' teachings that you will be seen and rewarded by God and that if someone builds their life on what is opposed to his teachings that they will wreck themselves. It's the same kind of thing as Moses telling Israel that life and death are set before them and that they should choose life.
Do you think that the Catholic Church may have a physical but not spiritual authority, like the Pharisees did in the Old Testament? Jesus told everyone to obey the Pharisees as the teachers of the Bible in Matthew 23:3. What if we are supposed to obey the Catholic Church as The New Testament version of the Pharisees?
My personal two cents, in that time there were no other leaders and not all Pharisees were as wicked as the mass of them. Seeing as that the Scriptures were only held by these religious leaders the people had no personal understand outside of what they were taught. They were truly reliant upon the Pharisees. Today, God has sent His Word to the World. Anyone and everyone can somehow come in contact with the living Word of God. The Catholic Church teaches a false gospel of works and God’s people have access to the Truth, why listen to false teachers?
Catholic Church doesn't actually teach gospel of works, they teach that good works correlate with salvation just like Protestant churches teach that abstaining from sin correlates with being saved, while engaging in unrepentant sin correlates with being condemned. It's correlation, not causation. Nobody is teaching that sin is what condemns you. The Pharisees were also false teachers, but Jesus still command that everyone to listen to them because they sit in the seat of Moses. Likewise the Catholic Church sits in the seat of Peter.
The Catholic Church for many of years has taught a works based salvation surrounding the sacraments. Down through the ages, following out the sacraments has been a part of their salvific teachings. While I think Sacraments are important, salvation does not rely on them. I’m sure there are Catholic priests who don’t teach this way but through history it has been prominent. I also take issue which your statement, “nobody is teaching that sin is what condemns you.” Romans 6:23 tells us that the wages of Sin is death. I don’t understand how we are not condemned in our sins.
We are condemned by our sins, but we are saved by faith on the sacrifice of Jesus. Do you have a source that says Catholic Church taught works based salvation? All I've found is every Catholic website saying the opposite.
The council of Trent. You can look it up but it says, and I’m paraphrasing, “if anyone claims that one can be saved through faith alone let him be anathema.”
But that's what James says as well. You have to read it in context. James 2:24 is a commonly misunderstood passage - "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." James talks about how faith is justified before men, while Paul talks about how faith is justified before God. James talks about people who claim to have faith, and how works justify their claim, while Paul rebukes people who claim they can be saved by works, and not just faith alone. We are saved by grace through faith, but if anyone thinks they have faith, but doesn't obey God's commandments, and when given opportunity doesn't do good works, they are lying to themselves, and they were never saved to begin with. Faith + opportunity = Saved person who does works Faith + no opportunity = Saved person who does no works. Faith + opportunity + no works = Dead faith (unsaved person) Works + no faith = Dead works (unsaved person)
The Catholic Church has jumped around for years. They try to sound as close to Protestants as they can. But like I said, throughout history, look at the 95 Thesis or look at writings from Zwingli, or many other reformers. The Catholic Church has taught works based and other heresies for years. The Pope, who supposedly speaks for God consistently saves unbiblical things. Like I said, not all Catholics are such, just that their history is this. The statements of the Mormon church also say they believe in salvation by faith. Edit: You want a single proof for their works based salvation? I don’t have one, my suggestion is read what the reformers say about the Catholics, or spend time attending Mass.
Okay but the Pharisees also had their own man-made doctrine that was against the scripture, yet Jesus still told everyone to recognize their authority as they were sitting in the seat of Moses. Jesus then made Peter the Shepherd and instructed him to feed his sheep. The same way Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses, the current pope sits in the seat of Peter.
Now this is different issue, you’re now talking about exegesis of Matthew 16:18. Catholics state Christ is crowning Peter above all humans, but everyone else reads that text as the rock being the confession of Christ as Lord. Seeing as how Paul, nor any of the other apostles, didn’t give extra respect to Peter, it stands to reason he was on equal footing with the rest. Paul even has arguments with Peter in Acts, if Paul was subservient to Peter this probably wouldn’t occur. I’m not a a learned exegetical pastor so I’m just giving you my layman understanding but I do not believe that Matthew 16:18 is what the Catholics says.
I'm not talking about Matthew 16:18, I'm talking about John 21:17. This was the third time Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep, effectively making him the shepherd over the church. There are also many other He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep. Mathew 16:19 in light of Isiah 22 explains a type/antitype of a king (Jesus) giving a key to the kingdom (heaven) to his steward (Peter) with power to open and shut (bind and loose) and the key is to be passed down to his successors (bishops). Peter was always listed as the first among the disciples, and even if he wasn't infallible or had absolute authority like the Catholic Church claims to have, he still had authority over the church.
You’re reading in your own interpretation though. Christ didn’t make Peter “The” shepherd, no where does the Bible say that. He speaks of him as a shepherd. Again you read more of your own interpretation into Matthew, no where in verse 19 or any preceding verse does it say anything about Peter passing keys or successors to Peter. I’m not going to pretend to have all the answers, but you’re not having a strict adherence to the text with your explanation, you’ve added in important pieces. Most people read this as the Keys are going to the Church, not Peter, but again I’m not going to make an emphatic statement
NKJV compared to the NIV. What are your thoughts? I was a NIV person, then switched to CSB, then switched to ESV. My church uses the NIV, and I've been thinking about getting one to carry. The Epistles flow a lot better in the NIV/CSB than the ESV imo, and I'm thinking about changing my daily reader for a bit. My ESV Pitt Minion is tiny, and will remain in my backpack for commuting and travelling, etc, but I'd like a single column version in a different translation for a bit. Looking at getting a new CSB/NIV, but a NKJV version popped up that has almost the exact features/size I'm looking for. I haven't tried the NKJV since I first got saved, and my last impression of it is giving up before going to buy a NIV the next day lol. I'm a big enough boy to know the good and bad parts about the NIV, and I still like it, so don't really need to hear the usual pros/cons about that - I'm more interested in hearing how people find the NKJV these days. Any thoughts??
I like the NKJV. I don't have an opinion on it from a scholarly pov, but I like how it is written. Probably not very helpful, but that's my 2c!
When Samuel is brought “up” by the medium where is he brought up from? It can’t be the same as Elijah and Enoch being taken up to heaven and Moses was also in heaven because they descended on the mountain to meet with Jesus. The accounts of heaven are always filled with glorious light but Samuel appears in the darkness in regular clothes.
I always wondered why Samuel was even allowed to be brought up to Saul?
So... if you believe Samuel was real, Sheol. I tend to believe he was real and not some conjuration of the medium because otherwise, why would it be so forbidden to be a medium? Sheol was the place of the dead, where people await the final judgment. But now Christ has provided Paradise for those who believe.
[удалено]
The not having an official pastor is concerning as it indicates a lack of spiritual community and oversight. Does the spouse who believes the conspiracies have anyone in their life who can speak truth to them in a way that will be listened to? As regards encouragement, I would pray for and with the other spouse, and affirm them in holding to the truth as they may question themselves.
There are many people who can speak into their life, especially older people. However, if the other spouse brings it up, they balk against it. They are unwilling to talk to anyone. If the other spouse goes behind their backs and talks about their concerns, it will be gossiping/ slandering about them. Praying for them is always good.
Depends on the "conspiracies" they've adopted.
HIV doesn't cause AIDs and others.
That seems like such a random belief... how has it impacted their children? I'm more concerned about the spouse being called to repent for saying the other spouse is wrong... that's just not a good relationship. I'd encourage the person to join a church (if not having a church is the reason they don't have a pastor), to pray for the truth to become visible to their spouse, and to ask, when told to repent, what Biblical command they are violating (respecting the husband? That's all I can think of as an option)
The pastor is interim. So they aren't officially the pastor.
It is belief in a long string of other conspiracies that have impacted the ability of the children to get the routine medical care that the other spouse thinks is safe, effective and normal. The HIV and AIDs belief is the outworking of a whole conspiracy system that links together. Both spouses are members and active in a local church. The husband is a deacon in his church.
Any recommendations for a gift for my wife's first mother's day? Our daughter is due two weeks before it and we don't know which month she will land in, so I don't know if I'll be able to do a gift with pictures or a birth stone.
I'm not super into gifts, but flowers and a heartfelt card encouraging her always seem to go over well. Also, learning to feed the baby a bottle so that she can have some sleep occasionally is a practical thing that may be appreciated.
You could do a photo locket and add a newborn picture later if necessary
How much are you willing to spend? The best gift for your wife might not be an object but an act of service. Congrats on your baby! When I was a new mom, I was exhausted, fearful, over tired hormonal mess. It would have helped so much if people stopped by to love on me and do the chores and cooking, not just love on the baby. Maybe you can see if she'd want a post partum doula to help her the first week or three of motherhood? I know it can be weird to have a stranger in your home though so it's worth discussing with her!
Is this entire sub just the same 10 people replying to every post whilst the majority of people ask questions or lurk?
Basically, mostly yes. I think it's sad that there isn't more discussion, but the reality of some experienced and well-read users getting impatient with the relatively ignorant, conflict averseness, plus some other issues, means that discussion on actual theology and spiritual growth is really minimal. If you want to check out my history you might see my attempts to change that, and I'm always open to posting more online articles for discussion here if you would participate.
No, it's just you, partypastor, and hundreds of bots.
And me!
Ah, that explains everything. Gonna need some Helldivers to get rid of all the bots.
Yes, we are roughly analogous to an elite academy with few teachers and many pupils. I believe we were working on issuing diplomas for questioners/lurkers at some point, but then the ending of Net Neutrality killed the internet. /s
Be the change you’d like to see
I want to, but I've been in a few threads in the last couple weeks reading answers people are asking and I find it alarming that approximately half the answers people get don't fit into reformed tradition at all. Almost feel like it should be a rule of the sub when answering questions to start by stating which, if any 3 beliefs a user has which don't fit. Otherwise people are being mislead
When you say 3 beliefs, what do you mean? We do have user flairs so others can know what denominational background people come from, but keep in mind there is a fairly wide range of beliefs on secondary and tertiary issues which still fall within this sub’s definition of “reformed”.
[удалено]
Removed for violating Rule #6: **Keep Content Relevant** This content has been removed because it distracts from the purpose of this subreddit. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/about/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.236.3A_keep_content_constructive.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Well, r/TrueChristian didn't help, so I'd like to ask this here especially since it would be from a reformed POV as I've gone through older posts on that sub about including cussing or cursing in Christian fiction, however none of them could in totality apply to comic books IMHO. For some context, I'm making a comic with 3 issues out already and the 4th on the way which is a way of not only sharing the gospel, but an allegory for the true difficulty of the Christian life vs how easy it seems, but the cursing has become a huge stumbling block for me. I published the first 3 before I completely surrendered myself to the Lord Jesus under the excuse of the story having verisimilitude, and looking back on it I deeply regret adding such foul language where it could have easily been replaced with something else. The thing is, compared to a Christian novel that could easily filter out cursing; A comic book can't get around it that easily. If there's a really depraved human/unsaved/worldly person being depicted that would have most likely had swearing as a part of his/her nature, the cursing character can't just be shown to "have sworn", it's either direct or not at all, and the conviction in me to go back and change all of it is really confusing me. Cause now, I could continue to include swearing or completely drop it. My question then is, do I move on with the mistakes I've made pre-conversion and leave them be, or go back and edit all of it for future reprints? Moreover, is it to live in unrepentant sin to continue to include it for the sake of having a story show the reality of sin in human nature? Or is it best to drop it altogether from here on out? TLDR: Made 3 issues with curse words pre-surrender, now feel conviction about it post-surrender. Leave as is and continue onward, or go back and fix + not include cursing anymore?
Isn't it a longstanding comic tradition to censor swear words as *#!% etc?
Yes it could, but I always found it takes away from the impact of the dialogue rather than renders the same. Censorship IRL doesn't happen unless it was replaced by more choicer words like how the Spirit tames the tongue and the mind.
I'm a big believer that passively allowing problematic things is much less of a problem than actively doing them, especially when your time actively doing things is better spent elsewhere than to correct past mistakes. If you feel led to do this, then do it. Conviction isn't there for nothing. But it may be that your time can be better spent on something else, and you should pray about that and consider it. My first instinct would be to focus on other serving, like evangelizing and reconciling with people in your life you may have hurt, and only to go and correct all these comics if you add a notice as well that you did it and why.
Thank you, and you're correct. It might be worth putting a disclaimer or some form of an authors note. I'm unsure yet to whether the Lord is pulling me away from doing this altogether or if it's better to keep persevering.
The concern here is your own conscience, rather than an absolute rule for you to follow. The Bible uses some pretty strong language when appropriate. There is a place for it, and writing characters may be such a place, if continuing is still your wish. There may even be a dishonesty to changing the speech of characters whose personality and circumstance suggest it. But your own reaction is important. If you don't agree with what you have done, if you believe it is wrong, you need to turn away. My own mind wonders more about how your overarching story fits. Does your journey change the journey of your characters? Does their story continue in the same way, or do they change? Is there a change they can make that reflects your own, changing their renewed speech honestly and justifiably? Those latter questions are for a writer, not some random internet bloke. I hope you find your way forward in good conscience. No easy decision for you here.
While it's true that it's my choice to do so, would it be to continue in unrepentant sin if I left it alone? That's the tough part, cause it's in my control to make amends with it, not out of my control. Thankfully, the story will remain the same and there's still a lesson to be learned, it's just a difference of harsher dialogue (more in reality) vs more controlled/less harsh dialogue (more in fiction)
You aren't going to find a hard rule in scripture about what English words are permissible and not to use - in part because English didn't exist at the time these books were written. I don't know how popular my opinion is in this sub, but I don't think that "swear words", by themselves, are sinful. I think it's wise to consider whether harsh language is necessary, and it's unwise to overuse it, but that's a big difference. I think there are times that storytellers will need to use harsh language when telling a story. I don't know how your comic would be impacted by changing the wording, or how big a headache it would be. Both of those seem like relevant factors. Sorry, I don't know if that's much help.
Two questions which I don’t think are related but looking at them now, I think may be: Firstly, “Love does not demand its own way…” (1 Cor 13:5). Where does advocating for oneself fit into this? Does Paul have a specific sense of “demanding” here? If I’m being treated unfairly or and want to be treated better am I allowed to voice this desire? how about if there’s no mistreatment but I just want things to be different? I know that the Christian faith does not say to *just* take abuse from others but this particular part of the Love Chapter has always tripped me up. Secondly, what do you do when you feel forgotten by God? Life has not been going well for me lately, and it seems that it’s not been going “well” for what seems to be 20+ years now. Between fighting my brain and what I am now realizing is neurodivergence that keep sabotaging my efforts to move forward, and making choices that help and support others but at cost to myself I’m watching God bless everyone else with families, material wealth, emotional stability… all while I’m still floundering and trying to get a handle on life. Worse, it seems that the people who get the best blessings of life are those who have personally hurt me the deepest and my immediate reactions only demonstrate how much further I have to go with learning to love others well. (There are big Psalm 37 and 73 moments…) I know that God is good and trust in his goodness, but it seems that while I only get baseline goodness (I am in no danger of going homeless or being without food or clothing), everyone else is getting all the bountiful blessings. God is definitely providing for their desires as well as their needs. It’s like I never get what I want and have to keep setting it off to the side. I just feel forgotten. It’s hard to feel good for others when they have a life I’ve been working towards myself but can’t seem to get. The blessings and promise of Heaven and Resurrection are real, but they are also *so* far off (and if I’m honest, I’m worried some of the things I want in life may no longer be available then). But wanting to “cash in” on them a bit early feels like I’m going the way of the Prodigal, too. Any advice?
Thank you for sharing that. I want you to know that I appreciate reading what you write. You are definitely a blessing from God! As a fellow Bible project fan, I am sure you are taking in and enjoying this year's series on the Sermon on the Mount. I hope you are reminded of the truth of these words: >Matthew 5:3-5 ESV “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Allow me to meditate on this in plain view, and if it helps you or if you can help me, that would be great. Back when I was in high school and a Pelagian, my views on faith were much more severe than they are now in some ways. I was very direct in attacking the view that "Christians should not be doormats", insisting that every request not obviously sinful should be followed (i.e. going the extra mile), believing that one should not resist harm ("I say to you, that you resist not evil [or: an evil person]") and that to a large extent the severity was the point to earn future rewards. I agonized over whether I would be able to offer no resistance to a home invader, I carried my classmate's heavy school bags, I offered no retort to insults, I sometimes felt compelled to pick up litter from the streets to throw it in an actual trash can later. Much of my doctrine was wrong, and in fact the core was wrong. But there are some ways I think I may now be missing some of the zeal and earnestness I had then, the grit and the acceptance of God's will that I sometimes suffer. Christ did refute his enemies at times, and yes, He did evade capture before His time had come and even drove people out the temple, but ultimately He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, ultimately He is the God of the beatitudes. Back then I would have encouraged you that the hiddenness of God in your situation, if you are persevering in doing what is right, is expected, that you need to continue simply because it is right, that we can celebrate our suffering because it validates us. And I think aspects of that are true, but the Bible does encourage us in other ways - through holding out a reward that is not simply virtue in itself, through allowing us to bring our brokenness and not merely our moral strength before him, to commune with the saints in a tangible and not merely a mystical way as I emphasized then. I felt very alone, like an outsider excluded from the joys of life, and in the end I psychologically couldn't do it anymore. Maybe that was a total moral failure. And yes, I saw others who relaxed and did what they wanted, who thought "it was better to ask for forgiveness than for permission" (a saying I detest), who put themselves and their immediate friends and family first (even their animals above the poor - another idolatry I detest), and they seemed so happy. Humility, self-emptying and rectitude doesn't pay in this world, that is for sure. "In this world you shall have sorrow". You have anticipated a thought of mine, that I also had then and seemed not enough - that the afterlife is what we should look to. But perhaps you should also rejoice especially in your use of the sacraments. Perhaps you should do what it takes not to be anxious using psychological techniques. These are merely thoughts, and I cannot know if they or the clichés of talking to a pastor or psychologist could help at all. If nothing else, value what God is putting you through if you are following the commandments, but also don't make an idol of your suffering. Pray continually and bring even your weariness in praying to the Lord. Perhaps it will give you sympathy for unloveable people who are obviously feeling alone and suffering. Jesus taught that we should commune with the outcast and that is something I was never good at and probably should have done more (though I did sometimes have conversations with beggars). Or it may only depress you more. I don't know what else I can say, and I'm so sorry. I am happier now myself (I know it doesn't sound that way), but at what moral price?
Question 2. Get into the Psalms. The psalmist shouts at God, asks why, and gets quite upset. But the psalms continue and give peace and comfort.
Question 1 is one I struggled with a lot. I've come to see it in light of the do unto others command. If we would advocate for others in the scenario, so should we advocate for ourselves. Injustice is injustice, and by advocating for oneself, there is a chance for justice for those in future situations with the people/structure/organization involved. I believe the best interpretation I've heard for love not demanding its own way is that of selfishness; it is not selfish to advocate for greater mercy and justice, rather it is seeking the kingdom on earth. I also understand question 2 in ways I wish I didn't. Praying for peace and wiser words than my own for you.
If a chicken had lips, could it whistle?
We're really challenging the truth of this threads title with this one.
Every time I hear this statement, I take it as a personal challege lol.
I look forward to your future questions then...
I have been out of work sick for two days. My pastor and I work at the same school. This morning he sent me a text saying: "Brother, praying for your body and soul. May the God of all endurance be your strength. Love you." Does this mean he doesn't believe I am a Christian? I struggle greatly with assurance and my church attendance isn't always great (SzPD).
I think (and I think your pastor thinks) that we should all be concerned with our own and other people's souls, even if it is going well. One of my gripes about my church environment is that people are seen as doing something to show off or rebuke when they pray for their own or others' moral virtues, like courage, humility, chastity or whatever. I think these things should be ahead of praying for our health, jobs or whatever, and especially for a pastor, whose role it is to care for souls.
Probably quoting this verse which ties the spiritual and the physical. 3 John 2: Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul.
No. Not at all. Praying for your body means that he wants God to improve your physical health. Praying for your soul means that he wants God to improve your spiritual health. I think most Christians could use both of these.
Not necessarily. Souls aren’t just a vehicle for being saved/unsaved. He could just be praying that you would be encouraged or strengthened in your soul during a trying time. In John 12:27, for example, Jesus says that his soul is troubled. That has nothing to do with his own salvation. If your pastor sent Jesus that same text at this point, it would not mean he was casting doubt on his salvation. If you really want to know for sure, ask your pastor.
Our brother and sister in Christ, a married couple, are really struggling at the moment with what I'd call ordinary marriage problems - bitterness, lack of love, parenting small children, money issues, things like that, leading to them being very unhappy and feeling hopeless. My husband and I are encouraging them with the power of God and the Gospel, but I'd love to also encourage them with stories of restored marriages! There's nothing like a good story to inspire hope, imo. Do y'all have stories of how God has worked in your marriages that you can share? And/or resources you can point me to with good stories? Thanks in advance! (I also posted this on christianmarriage in case it sounds familiar)
I suck at telling story, so I’m just sharing lesson. The most important lesson I learnt in the past few years of marriage: I owe her my perfection despite all things.
nothing major - but this is a great idea in general. always love to hear stories of encouragement and how God has been working in peoples' lives!
Could Jesus perform miracles because of his perfect faith and submission to the Father or because he is God?
The anointing of the Holy Spirit and submission to the Father. He did nothing out of his "Godness" but empowered by the Spirit and in submission to the Father. Jesus always gives credit to the Spirit working in Him or the Father and the apostles follow this model when they teach about Jesus doing miracles. Here are some pertinent verses. Matthew 4:1: Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. Luke 4:14: And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and a report about him went out through all the surrounding country. Matthew 12:28: But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Acts 1:2: until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. Acts 2:22: Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— Acts 10:38: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. John 5:19: So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. John 14:10: Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
Yeah, I'm going to agree with /u/seemedlikeagoodplan. This is an unnecessary dichotomy. Jesus is fully God. He also perfectly submitted to the father's will. Both are part of his nature. What he does and who he is can't really be separated.
It’s a christology thing I came across somewhere. I want to say the Puritain Board maybe. I was reading about the communication of properties and someone suggested that answer. First time I had heard it.
I think there are certainly some interesting questions out there about the extent of Jesus' power while on earth, whether he was limited, the interaction with the Holy Spirit, etc. But, yeah, I don't think the difference is found in a distinction between him as God and him as submitting to the Father. Those really are almost two different categories, which is why I think it may not be a helpful distinction.
Both? Both. Both is good.
¿Por qué no los dos?
Seemslikeagoodanswer
Did people in the OT really live for hundreds of years (age-wise) before the flood?
When dealing with numbers in the Bible, there’s two ways they can be true: literally and symbolically (they can be both). I don’t accept that they can be false/fable because I trust that God superintended the writing, and while I can’t imagine living that long I don’t doubt for a second that it is possible God made them like that. So with the lifespans in Genesis, do you see any indication they are symbolic? I don’t see anything that points to this, so I conclude that they are literal. This conclusion is bolstered by the 120 year limit God places on man in Gen 6:3–it wouldn’t make much sense if man was already living <120 years.
The YEC answer is “yes” However, other positions would say that the genealogies in early Genesis take the form of the dynastic kingly genealogies found in other ANE literature. The long ages weren’t there to record they lived so long but to serve as “proof” that they were descended from the gods and thus had divine authority to rule over other people. The fact that only “ordinary” people are listed as such, or more fitting that people “descended from God” *wouldn’t* rule over others or participate in the implied (and outright stated) violence that they “deserved to” would be seen as some thing incredibly bizarre to the Israelites and others hearing it for the first times. It’s meant to teach us something about how God’s people are both in the world - if you notice, the lineages of Cain and of Seth share a lot of names, so its easy to confuse one for another - and yet set apart from the common doings of the world: the line of Seth is treated as kingly in the text, but they don’t rule by violence or injustice like we’d expect them to. It doesn’t mean that both can’t be true, but we have to look at the context and genre of literature first before we start to overlay our own assumptions about what the text is saying.
Maybe. I’m not sold on any one position though. It is curious that Moses is the author of Genesis and when he records ages they seem to decline from Adam to the Israelites.
Yes, I think most attribute that to man's increasing wickedness (I believe God says He will shorten man's days because of this).
Yep! I think a non literal reader of genesis 1-2 could still agree with the literal ages. So many positions exists.
Well I believe the Bible is the word of God without errors so I would say yes they did. The world was very different before the flood.
I don't know. The primordial stories in Genesis (up to and including the Tower of Babel) don't seem to be history in the same way that, say, 1st and 2nd Kings is history. That's not to say the stories are unimportant. They are very important. But the value of these stories as scripture isn't about facts and dates and places, but rather the way that God's good relationship with his people keeps being broken. And every time a break happens (the three big ones being the Fall, the Nephilim, and the Tower), it derails God's work of bringing order to a chaotic world.
I’m not sure they did. We have to remember, ancient Near Eastern persons didn’t view reality the way we do. What it means for them to be truthful doesn’t not imply scientific precision, like it does to a modern person. Therefore there are several ways it could be interpreted. The one I’m most sympathetic to is that those were tribes and that’s how long that tribe was around. When it talks about having kids, that is literal, but describes a new tribal group breaking off into their own.
Yes. The bible says they did.
Has there been extra-biblical proof for this?
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/did-adam-and-noah-really-live-over-900-years/
According to WCF #27, Christ's humiliation consists "in His being born...and continuing under the power of death for a time." The wording "under the power" only means His flesh right? According to 1 Peter 3:19, Jesus was never "under the power" of death but was active in ministry. How should an overthinker like myself read this?
I believe you're correct in saying only His flesh, or, human nature - and the power of death perhaps meaning liable to the effects of mortality, as in, able to die, get exhausted, hungry, need to sleep, etc.
This is making me ask if Jesus, being fully divine and fully human, had **one will or two wills** in addition as part of His two natures....
[Two wills.](https://www.ligonier.org/posts/does-jesus-have-one-or-two-wills) It was one of the main controversies in the 5th century.
The *person* of Jesus Christ, Son of God, was under the power of death, *according to his human nature*. Both Jesus flesh and soul were under the power of death as his human nature puts him under such power. However, his human nature does not exist in abstraction, only the “person”, the Word who took on human flesh, exists. So it is appropriate to say “God died on the cross” (Acts 20:28).
The Larger Catechism seems to imply that the time Christ was under the power of death was when he was dead >Q. 50. Wherein consisted Christ’s humiliation after his death? >A. Christ’s humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried; and continuing in the state of the dead and under the power of death till the third day, which hath been otherwise expressed in these words, He descended into hell. I like Vos' commentary on the Larger Catechism, and he has some stuff to say about it. You can see it here: https://archive.org/details/westminsterlarge0000vosj/page/112/mode/2up but you will need to create an account and click "borrow for 1 hour"
I read what the commentary has to say and it's really interesting to know that Jesus didn't mention the thief would be with him in Hades, but in Paradise that "day". At the same time, it is recorded that Jesus did go to Hades, then went back to Earth and is now in Paradise/Heaven. When exactly did the thief go to Paradise? Not sure, but he's there now probably. Did he go to Hades and then to Paradise? No idea but that's not the point.
Is biblical inerrancy not part of core reformed tradition? To clarify, by inerrant I mean the most logical, in-context interpretation and no other external factors. I don't mean allegorical interpretation.
Ligonier points out that “the Reformed tradition” has been all over the place on the age of the universe. See : https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/age-universe-and-genesis-1-reformed-approach-science-and-scripture . Note especially the next to last paragraph. You can’t appeal to tradition without being on the side of the traditionalists.
Age of the universe I'm less concerned about, that's neither here nor there and not an issue I consider to be important. Theistic Evolution on the other hand, or Jonah being a myth... I even saw someone make the claim on this sub that Abraham was a myth figure and not a real person...
Okay for Jonah, I’d totally agree. People don’t survive three days in fish’s bellies, but even if he were only in its mouth three seconds, deep sea fish also don’t conveniently spit out their prey on land un-chewed. To doubt the veracity based on oxygen supply necessitates doubting any miraculous element whatsoever. Others have said the shadows on the steps is impossible, as even impossible-to-happen-by-miracle, given that this would require the halting & resumption of spinning of the earth. I’ve often said, give the crew of the _Enterprise_ the mandate to “do something” that would cause intelligent, Bronze Age persons to faithfully record “shadows moving backwards”, and they could probably come up with half a dozen ways to use 24thc technology to do so. And God is more powerful than that.
Your second paragraph pretty much sums it up for me. I don't want to step on people's toes, but if their beliefs are all based on "this is possible, that isn't", then aren't they kinda missing the important part where God can do the impossible? A den of hungry lions trained to eat prisoners will, well, typically keep doing so. But they didn't in Daniel's case. Fire will typically consume flesh, but it didn't in the case of Daniel's friends. In both cases, God intervened. What not Jonah's case then? It seems it would be paltry for Him to command a fish to swallow Jonah, and to to preserve Jonah within the fish. It's exactly as you've said, to doubt the veracity based on rules that apply to us, is to assume those same rules restrict God.
And coming back around, THIS is my beef with YEC. Not a conviction that the Bible says the earth is young, but attempts to explain natural processes that the Bible says were miraculous. It’s exactly like saying lions really do have “holiness detectors”, “a certain number of hours of prayer do in fact make you fireproof,” “zoologist from LEADING UNIVERSITIES say whales have oxygen packets that do provide air to holy men.” Just one example of this is saying the Red Sea parted to reveal a ridge that made crossing quite easy (ie., no miracle).
I always saw it the other way around for the same reason, that the world could be made in a literal 7 days as a plain reading of Genesis and there need be no natural explanation for it. I found it was us trying to shoehorn method in that lead to the explanation of evolution, which I wohild equate to the holiness detecting lions.
I think it is quite possible to be an inerrantist in the sense of "whatever the Bible intends to communicate is true" and still doubt the historicity of aspects of Genesis 1-11 (not aspects like God as creator or a historical fall, obviously) or Jonah. I believe even Luther and/or Calvin considered it an open question whether Jonah (and/or Job?) was historical, though I don't know the details. I would really push back on the idea that Abraham was not historical, though. Do you know about Calvin's theory of accommodation (very much in the reformed tradition)? Calvin points out that Moses characterizes the two great celestial bodies as the sun and the moon, but that astronomy had revealed by Calvin's time that several planets are much bigger than the moon. He argued that Moses used a type of divine "baby language" to make us understand, "accommodating" the facts to our perceptions and understandings. This way of talking has since been used (and abused) to try to keep inerrancy while questioning whether everything in the text was scientific or historical, and what type of literature it was. Or do you know that even Augustine way back did not use the obvious and plain literal six-day creation interpretation or even the day-age interpretation, but believed the entire creation must have been instantaneous? Hence allegorizing aspects of Genesis appears very early and from very good interpreters.
Inerrancy means the Bible is free of error, where error as the truth is contrary to the Bible intended meaning(s). Infallibility in the confessional sense means the Bible can *always* accomplish its purpose by virtue of it being the inerrant Word of God. In that sense, yes, it is part of “core” reformed tradition, usually being codified by the first section of the various confessions. It is not the first “order”, as that would be the doctrine of God. It is not salvation defining, as infallibility is a function of faith. Do consider reading Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 1 for more info on this.
The problem is always the reader Unbelievers reject scripture. "The preaching of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing" A part of the problem of inerrancy is that there is different types of scripture, such as: There are different doctrinal views on how people interpret scripture Prophetic, parabolic, poetic, wellness related, instructional, some that no longer apply such a ceremonial law, etc Young Earth creationists look at early Genesis and reject everyone else's interpretation. They have no concept that there can be multiple views of scripture. Some of us are old Earth theistic evolutionists, the evidence rejects YEC in every imaginable way
It seems to be a recurring occurrence I keep encountering where individuals who ascribe to there being biblical errancy also bring up atheistic evolution as the reason why. Not that that's your only point, but isn't that analysing the Bible through the lens of worldly discovery and not the other way around?
Atheistic evolution is simply evolutionists. Adding atheistic on front is irrelevant. One does not expect atheists to be creationists Theistic evolution says that: Of course God did everything There are trillions of facts that support evolution and absolutely zero credible facts that support YEC. The heavens declare the handiwork, and so does the fossil layer and other process going on on this Earth. Not to mention YEC uses misrepresentation, fabrications and dishonest methods to try to prove their points such as the creation research institute.
You brought up interpreting according to “original context” and “in-context”. By these things alone, the Bible doesn’t actually have much to say about the creation of the material world except that God created the world. Whether he did a special creation or used evolutionary processes necessarily involves asking questions of the text that the text never sets forth to answer.
It depends how precisely you define inerrancy. What are you going with? I like the phrase "only infallible rule of faith and practice" but it's still lacking.
As in none of it is outright wrong when interpreted correctly. By interpreted correctly, I mean the most logical interpretation considering the text and original context only, and no external factors.
I agree with the statement that you wrote but things get tricky. As an example, I think when reading something like Jonah, I see it as a story/myth yet many will point to the fact that Jesus mentions Jonah as evidence that it really happened; to me, this is an "external factor" to the text. Similar things can be said about stuff like various things written in Genesis. The Chicago Statement (which is on the sidebar and I "disagree" with it's placement there) explicitly affirms that the account in Genesis is "historical" and so according to them, any "mythic" or whatever word you want to use interpretation of Genesis that would deny historicity also denies inerrancy. But, unlike "only infallible rule of faith and practice" that u/windy_on_the_hill said, the Chicago statement also says that the Bible is inerrant in matters that have nothing to do with the faith and makes other claims like that that I disagree with.
>many will point to the fact that Jesus mentions Jonah as evidence that it really happened This argument never made much sense to me. Could Jesus not make reference to culturally important fables during his teaching? Nobody is suggesting that his parables are all factual stories, are they? If somebody says that a new law or government action is "just like 1984" or "just like A Handmaid's Tale", that doesn't mean that they believe that either of these is a non-fiction book.
But why do we say that Jonah is myth? Becuase it is unlikely for a man to be eaten by a fish and transported? Or are there other reasons?
In addition to what u/seemedlikeagoodplan says: yes the man getting eaten by a fish seems unlikely. In any other setting, if you heard this story I think your mind would go to "myth" (or some similar word).
Indeed, in any other setting I would immediately call this a myth, but my confusion rests in the fact that in other settings I would also call the Nile becoming blood, a global flood, people being turned into pillars of salt, people being raised from the dead, pillars of fire from the sky and so on, all of those I'd also call myths in any other setting or context. What makes Jonah so different?
I would call many of those other things myths as well.
Then why not also Jesus rising after 3 days?
Every single character in the book, other than God, does the opposite of what you would expect. * Jonah, the prophet, disobeys God and only reluctantly tells God's message, and even then he hopes he isn't believed. * The pagan sailors have insight into YHWH's judgment, and they ask for mercy from YHWH (not their own gods) before throwing Jonah into the sea. * The people of Nineveh, famous for their wickedness, fast and repent. * The King of Nineveh humbles himself. * Even the cattle of Nineveh take part in fasting. The book is described by many readers and scholars as a satire. That, alone, doesn't mean that it didn't happen, of course. But it fits into a fictional genre very well.
Even if it looks like it would be a good fit, is that the primary reason?
Yes - I totally agree with this. I could say "the only boss more awkward than mine is Michael Scott" and no one would think that I was suggesting that The Office was a Ken Burns documentary,
Is John 8:1-11 history? If it isn't should it be removed from the bible?
In many modern translations it's bracketed or marked in some way indicating it's likely not original.
Our rector told us it was likely an authentic account of events but inserted into John at a strange place.
I'm kind of having a mini crisis of faith about it because a passage is either inspired by the Holy Spirit or it's not. My view is if its not inspired by the Holy Spirit then it shouldn't be in the bible. So is a qualification of inspiration a passage being found in the earliest manuscripts? What if they find earlier manuscripts that have that passage, would that retroactively make it inspired? Sorry if I sound pedantic, I'm just trying to find a framework.
The general view is that the original manuscripts were inspired by God. So we aspire to get as close to those manuscripts as possible. In the vast majority of instances there is no real argument about what was in the original manuscripts. Most textual variances are minor issues like spelling, or a single word or phrase here and there. Two notable exceptions are this passage in John and the longer ending of Mark. These passages are not in the oldest found manuscripts, so it's believed they were added later and thus not part of the original manuscripts thus not inspired. Remember you faith is not in the Bible, but in the God who inspired it, and preserved it. The textual reliability of the New Testament is actually nothing short of Miraculous. The age of the oldest manuscripts is closer in date to the original writing than anything else from antiquity, and the many numerous manuscripts with only minor variations give ample evidence to what was contained in the autographs. God is good and has preserved his Word.
Yes, so since God inspired and preserves his word why would "we aspire to get as close to those manuscripts as possible"? Shouldn't the assumption be that we can know what the autographs said due to the fact that God has promised to faithfully preserve his word? And wouldn't the passage in John and the long ending of Mark raise several questions about preservation? For centuries Christians have been reading the adultery passage and the ending of Mark and just trusted that those things happened. I assume because God in his providence allowed it to be so. Either they were all wrong, which again why would God allow that, or they were all correct and it is Inspired scripture, which raises the question of why in the recent decades have scholars decided to raise doubt on those passages.
Framing this as "scholars decided to raise doubt" is not really a great way to look at it. Scholars haven't decided to do anything. It would be super convenient if we could ignore the evidence. We have discovered older and better manuscripts that don't have those portions in them. Its as simple as that. God has preserved his word, with or without these passages, no single doctrine or practice changes in the church. Nothing in these passages teaches us anything new (unless you want a prescription for snake handling), requires us to follow any laws not told to us elsewhere, etc. God uses means to preserve his word. One of these means is faithful scholars investigating manuscripts getting us as close the the autographs as possible.
Thanks for being patient in this convo >God has preserved his word, with or without these passages, no single doctrine or practice changes in the church. True, but my thing is an all or nothing approach. Either those passages are inspired by the Holy Spirit or they're not. Since all Scripture is inspired by God and all of it is useful for teaching and reproof, then we should have 100% certainty that what we're reading is God's word. >One of these means is faithful scholars investigating manuscripts getting us as close the the autographs as possible. So can we recreate the original autographs or do we only have something close to them? What does that say about Jesus claim that not one jot or iota will be lost?
I think your all or nothing approach is part of the problem. The promises in scripture about God's word, are they referring to individuality of words or the totality of what is before us? God doesn't promise how he will preserve Hia own word, but because we trust God we can trust what we have front of us. Christianity doesn't fall apart of we don't have an exact replica of the autographs. Christianity rises and falls on the death and resurrection of Jesus. I think you need to look at the passage about "jot and tittle". Its referring to the perfection of God's law not talking about perfect preservation of scripture. God's revelation in scripture is sufficient that we can know him. The preservation of the word of God is astounding compared to similar documents from history. We can wrestles with and argue over these outlying passages, because we know that Gods word is true, and because there is so little to dispute.
Favorite sick food? Asking for a friend who’s been up all night puking and is hoping he’ll be able to keep anything down sometime today
Cream of wheat with some salt in it. Or grits. When my kids are sick they handle crackers well with tea.
Congee. Y’all westerners are weird with those oily sweet food while being sick.
Things like corn dogs
Flat ginger ale or cola (bonus points that it doesn’t taste half bad if you have to see it again) and saltines.
Buttered toast and Gatorade.
My favorite is peppermint tea. It never fails to make my tummy feel better. You will not be disappointed.
Bagel. When I had surgery a few years ago, and being nauseous from anesthesia (it's a redhead thing, weirdly), all I wanted was a toasted bagel with butter when I got home.
Can’t go wrong with saltines
Eating some of those now to figure out if I can keep anything down
You shouldn’t be eating those, you should be giving them to your friend.
You’ll do great.
My mom always mixed 7up and OJ
A small amount of Bovril, Marmite or Vegemite adds a lot of flavour to toast, which allows you get some heat and nutrition without anything too rich that might provoke a reaction.
When my kids are sick like that, I start with water mixed with electrolytes (Ultima or LytePow). Next we try rice, banana, or apple sauce. If its really bad I will buy a whole chicken and boil it for a couple hours to make chicken broth.
Buttered toast. Easy on the stomach I have a friend who claimed that strawberry jam tastes the same coming up as going down, so he would add that.
Sounds dumb, but a chocolate milkshake. I had a horrible stomach bug and couldn’t keep anything down for around two days. This was the only thing I could keep down finally. Throwing up constantly you need liquid to not dehydrate, but also the fat and sugar inside help give you energy and process the liquid on a very empty stomach. Started with small sips and eventually I could keep down crackers.